on monday. remember, the spin always stops here because we are always looking out for you. have a great weekend. >> this is a fox news alert. tonight, washington is reeling after one of the nation's top intelligence officials abruptly resigns. i'm liz cheney, in tonight for sean. the director of central intelligence, david petraeus stepped down, citing an extra-marital affair. after being married over 37 years, i showed extremely poor judgment, by engaging in an extra-marital affair. such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and the leader of an organization, such as ours. general petraeus, one of america's most respected and decorated military leader, served as the agency's head since april of last year.
tonight, fox news has learned that the woman petraeus had an affair with is paula broadwell, who wrote a biography on petraeus, called "all in." their relationship was uncovered by the fbi, during an investigation unrelated to this matter. miss broadwell was interviewed on this very program in march. >> i love david petraeus. how well did you get to know him? >> pretty l. i spent 3 years, that started as my dissertation and became a book. i was imbedded into the headquarters and followed him around and gathered strategic information. >> >> pretty amazing. >> the time is garnering a lot of attention. we are only a few short days removed from the presidential election and we are days away from explosive closed-door hearings, related to the benghazi coverup. petraeus was among the group of high-level government officials
slated to appear before the house and the senate intelligence committees. but fox news has confirmed, petraeus will no longer be in attendance next week. what impact will this have on the inquiry into the benghazi terror attack? joining me with the answer to that question and more is someone at the forefront of this investigation. house oversight committee member, jasieve chavits. let's start with the jaw-dropping news about general david petraeus. we have learned there was an fbi investigation underway. i think there are a number of questions raised, including, you know, at what point did the director of the fbi become aware of this? why was this just announced today? talk about your perspective on the implication, broadly speaking on our nation's intelligence efforts and the benghazi investigation? >> well, first of all, it's sad fall from grace. i feel for his wife. nobody should have to go through
that. but this is highly suspicious, in its timing t. comes days after an election, a very important election. it comes days before he's set to testify before the house intelligence committee. and it really begs the question of what did the fbi know? and when did they know it? how long did they sit on that information? general petraeus briefed the senate about what happened in benghazi. did he have this looming over his head? what -- what is the real timing here, liz? that's the real question that i think going forward is so imperative that we get to the bottom of. >> also, the issue, as well, of whether or not general petraeus will testify. now, you know, obviously, he is no longer the director of the cia. but there is no reason at all and it would seem to be quite clear he has information that would be very important for the committees to have. what is your sense? will he be calld? >> he should absolutely, totally
testify. there is no reason that mr. petraeus should not testify before that -- the house intelligence committee. it's a closed briefing. he has intimate personal firsthand knowledge that has not excluded people from testifying previously. he was the person in charge. the annex was attacked. he has been in that position for a year. he should know and understand what was happening in libya. absolutely, general petraeus should testify next week. >> congressman, we learned today that secretary of state clinton has said she will be unavailable next week, when she has been called to testify. do you anticipate that the committee will try to come up with arrangements to to have a new date so the secretary of state will be able to clear her schedule and testify and let folks know what she knew and when? >> there is only so long this administration is going to be able to hide and duck and cover the hard questions. look, ambassador rice, secretary clinton, there is a host of people that need to come before congress and testify about what
they knew and when they knew it. i sent my first letter to secretary clinton on september 20. they had the gall to send to me a response to that by photocopying -- literally photocopying things that are found on the internet, as that was supposed evidence in answer to my questions. they have been ducking and covering up -- let me be crystal clear, liz. this administration is engaged what i believe in one of the biggest coverups we have ever seen in this nation. normally, the coverup is worse than the crime. but the crime itself, what happened on the day of that event, i think when we get to the bottom of this, this country will not believe what actually happened. >> i think you are right. all the evidence points to the fact that not only did they not provide the security that was requested before the attack and there was a seven-hour attack, where they failed to provide any support for the folks on the ground, as well as afterwards, the continuing misleading the american people. you know, part what have is key
here, you pointed out before, the timeline of exactly when did the attack begin and what happened. i understand that your committee's received different timelines from the key agencies involved in this? >> nine official responses. but we got a verbal timeline from the state department. we have one from the cia that was printed in the washington post, not given to congress. late today -- of course, late on a friday, the department of defense puts out a page and-a-half timeline. here's the problem i have -- take one example. the state department says that the fire fight at the annex in benghazi started at 4:00 a.m., but the department of defense says it started at 5:15 a.m. it's been nearly two months. they can't gefn get together and understand. it is the degree of incompetency that is stunning at that level. and then to what degree are they covering these things up? you look at documents and they beg more questions. every day, vimore questions
about what happened in libya. it is just inexcusable. there is no excuse for it, liz. >> there is so much here. as you said, it is unprecedented that we had the consulate attacked, that we had our ambassador and three other americans killed. how will your committee determine what the focus should be? where they are going to direct their efforts? there is so much, you imagine the administration's hoping that people will just be confused by the amount of information that is out there that clearly is misleading and wrong? >> look, at some point, the president of the united states is going to have to make a determination to what the truth is. he has tried to have it both ways. none of that can be true. it just -- it couldn't possibly be true. there are three parts to this. what happened in the leadup, why they didn't get more security? what happened during the attack itself? who responded and was the president correct when he said he directed everybody to go in and protect everybody in benghazi? i don't think he did.
the third part is the coverup itself. how the administration, for literally weeks, was misleading the american people and the world to fit their political agend a. all three of those thing, our committee will continue to pursue. >> congressman, i don't want to lose the opportunity to ask you about the upcoming fiscal cliff negotiations. you said today, you talked about the fact that the president may think he's got a mandate, but the republicans in the house certainly have one as well. how much do you think you will see compromise here? and how much do you think the republicans will stick to their principles? >> i think we were somewhat vindicated in the bob woodward book. this presidentville to engage and come back to the reality that house republicans were also re-elected. and elections have convinces, but we have the -- consequences and we have the majority newscast house. no one person will get everything they want. we understand that. but we will come to the table. but we need the president to come to the table, not with rhetoric, not running off to asia, as he's going to do -- the
crisis are going on and he is going to asia. we are willing to come to the table. we need the president there as well. >> great. thank you for being with us. more on therician of general petraeus. and it was only yesterday that we learned about iran firing on a u.s. drone. an event that happened days before the election of the timing of that report remains suspicious. we will examine the potential christmas was magical? let's get back there. celebrate the arrival of santa at bass pro shops this saturday and the unveiling of santa's wonderland. time passes. hold on to christmas.
another way staples and hp make it easier to upgrade. make your windows 8 experience even better with hp. and this week, get $200 off the hp envy dv6 notebook. staples. that was easy. it's the cleanest, clearest water. we fd the best, sweetest crab for red lobster that we can find. [ male announr ] hurry in to rd lobster's crabfest! the only time of year you can savor 5 succulent crab entrees, all under 20 dollars. like a half-pound tender snow crab paired with savory grilled shrimp, st 12.99. or our hearty crab and roasted garlic seafood bake. [ forsythe ] if i wouldn't pt on my table at home, i wouldn't bring it in. my name's jon forsythe, and i seaood differently. i honestly loved smoking, and i honestly didn't think i would ever quit. [ male announcer ] along with support, chantix is proven to help people quit smoking. it reduces the urge to smoke. it put me at ease that you could smoke on the first week. [ male announcer ] some people had changes in behavior, thinking or mood, hostility, agitation,
depressed mood and suicidal thoughts or actions while taking or after stopping chantix. if you notice any of these stop taking chantix and call your doctor right away. tell your doctor about any history of depression or other mental health problems, which could get worse while taking chantix. don't take chantix if you've had a serious allergic or skin reaction to it. if you develop these stop taking chantix and see your doctor right away as some can be life-threatening. if you have a history heart or blood vsel problems, tell your doctor if you have new or worse symptoms. get medical help right away if you have symptoms of a heart attack. use caution when driving or operating machinery. common side effects include nausea, trouble sleeping and unusual dreams. with chantix and with the support system it worked. it worked for me. [ male announcer ] ask your doctor if chantix is right for you.
>> we are learning new details about a possible coverup from the obama administration. it involves iran's attempt to shoot down an unmanned u.s. drone. last week, iranian war planes fired on and missed the aircraft as it flew in international air space. the pentagon revealed this for the first time yesterday, saying the drone returned to base safely. but today, the question linger, why are we only learning about this attack now? why was it kept under lock and key until the election was over? here to talk about this and the abrupt resignation of general director david petraeus. john bolton and jack keen. gentlemen, thank you both very much for being here this evening. general, let me start with you in this tragic and surprising news about general petraeus and his abrupt resignation. what is your sense of the implications for the nation and the really tragic end to what has been a stellar military
career? >> just let me say on a personal note, liz, i know dave petraeus very well and his family. it is such a sense of loss and sympathy for the amount of pain that they are in. i love this family and him as well. it's a personal loss for me. but it's also a loss for the country. this is the most accomplished general officer in generation, comparable to the legends of world war ii. he didn't fight a war as big as they did. but we were definitely losing -- most people don't understand how tremendous it was that he began to turn the war around in afghanistan as well. no general officer has been offered two wars to turn around except macarthur, and he failed miserably in the second one. he is a consummate public servant. i have to believe that america has not heard the end of dave petraeus. >> i appreciate that, general. thank you. i would like to go to you, john
and talk about what this means in terms of what comes next at the agency and get your thoughts on what it means, in terms of the benghazi investigation. do you think that general petraeus will in fact be called to testify? >> well, i think in terms of benghazi, it is inevitable that he will testify. i do not think that the resignation timing had anything to do with the hearings next week, just because the general is now a private citizen doesn't mean that he can't be called to testify or subpoenaed, if need be. it may well be the hearing would have to be closed because of the classified nature of much of the information. but there is no way you can preclude congress from having him testify simply by leaving the agency. i think there are a lot of unanswered questions here in terms of timing, though, with respect to the presidential election, and what the fbi investigation had uncovered,
when the white house or the attorney general knew about it. this is a very, very... disturbing series of events. i think tell have a profound impact on the cia. i think it is now incumbent on the administration to come up with a new director, as quickly as they can to try to restore morale. this has to be a shattering blow to the agency, to its personnel in the field. and the ramifications here for all of the agency's operations are very grave, indeed. >> jack, let me ask you, on the issue of this drone, you know, we have had these reports that huthe two iranian soviet-designed fighters who fired on the drone and miss the. and that raises questions about the skill and the capability of the fighters and the pilots. give us a sense of what the iranians are up to and what it means and why we failed to respond in any way whatsoever. >> i think it's part of the
gradual influence that the iranians are trying to have in the region at large approximate to quiet nuclear weapons. they clearly want us out of the region. that's been their stated objective for years. we will have clashes like this with them. and also, i think they -- they clearly understand that the united states is in a weakened position in the region, based on our policies the last few years of disengagement. and they are encouraged by all of that. that's why they are on the rise in the region and the al qaeda and the affiliated groups are on the rise in the region. they are emboldened on it. as for the timing of this, this seemed to be a routine predator operation, as i understand it. as such, when the united states property is attacked in the air or on the ground... i believe the administration, the pentagon has an obligation, once they have the facts to report that immediately to the american people. this was not a covert operation, in which there is no obligation
to report for obvious reasons. so i don't understand why this wasn't reported soon after the event itself. >> ambassador boldon, do you think there was something political in that? >> absolutely. i don't think there is any other explanation. you know, the original report was leaked by people in the administration, a pattern -- a disturbing pattern that we have seen for the past several years. and yet the official defense department spokesman, when he went on the record said, well you know, we don't normally talk about these things because they are classified. if it was classified before the election, it's classified after the election. if you don't want to comment on it, the standard formulation is, we don't comment on intelligence-related matters. yet, they department do that. it's a pattern of trying to have it both ways. keep classified what is detrimental to the administration and leak out what benefits it. >> coming up, we will have more
>> welcome back to "hannity." earlier, we told you about iran's attempt it take down a u.s. drone. there is another discuring story concerning that rogue nation. according to a number of iranian bloggers, white house senior adviser, valerie jarrett, has been in secret talks with iran. fox was told, quote, there is not a shred of truth to this report. back with the reaction and more, ambassador john bolton and general jack kean. the white house has denied that valerie jarrett was involved. but it raises a larger issue of negotiations with iran, which we know are planned and going on in the p5 plus 1. can you tabling about the vulnerability of being in negotiations with iran and what it would mean if the u.s. was in
unilateral talks with that rogue nation. >> sean. >> the iranians have been negotiating with us over 10 years, as they advance their nuclear weapons program. they welcome that because it buys them more time. that's what has been happening and i am convinced that is happening here. they may throw us a bone to keep the negotiations go. but i am not optimistic that much of anything will come of it. if the negotiations were able to stop the nuclear weapons program, we would have to insure that the highly enriched uranium is out of iran and it's verifiable, certainly by competent inspectors on a regular basis. i don't hold out much hope for that. >> have you seen now, consistently, ambassador bolton, instances where the administration has used political operatives, like david axelrod, to be engagedin policy making on national security issues, to be out talking about the issues.
is it your sense that this may in fact be another case? or do you take the white house at its word that the stories aricismy not true? >> i don't take the white house at its ward. but when i order this, i thought i was reading satire. surely they could not believe that valerie jarrett was somebody to negotiate with iran. there are at least two things that are disastrously wrong, if this is true. number 1, to send perhaps the president's closest adviser to ask for bilateral negotiations is such a signal of weakness, of needing, of caring, of wanting the negotiations, that it has to say to the leadership in tehran, we have the americans exactly where we want them. we are not worried about sanctions, we are going to get out of this. number 2, from an intelligence point of you, you couldn't get a better person to tell iran everything they want to know about the president, how he think, how he act, how valerie jarrett think, it is
inconceivable that you would give the iranians that kind of advantage. if the administration did it, it leaves us in a very weak position. >> you know, i wish it was the only thing raising concerns in terms of our policy with iran. general, if you look around the world, you know, now that we have had a few days, we are through the election. we know we will have four more years of obama administration foreign policy. do you see anywhere in the world where we are better off or where we are viewed as a stronger, more powerful nation than we were when barack obama first took office? >> absolutely to the contrary. the fact of the matter is, when america has very strong leadership, the world is a safer and a better place. when american leadership is indecisive or paralyzed by fear of consequence, which we have had a lot of, the world is a much more dangerous place. that's what you get from our allies in the region, particularly in those areas
where our values and our national interests are being contested as they are in the middle-east. they all fundamentally believe the united states policy is to pull away from them and to disengage. they are terrified by the prospects of an advancing iran, and an advancing al qaeda and affiliated groups with a weakened united states, as a player. >> when you look at the issue of nuclear proliferation, as well, ambassador, iran is a concern. but you look across the region and the extent to which you will have other nations, clearly attempting to obtain nuclear weapons as they watch the iranians go unchallenged. how hopeful are you that the obama administration will take any firm steps to stop the spread of nuclear weapons? >> i don't think they are. i think the odds now are that iran will get nuclear weapons and as secretary of state clinton herself has said, if iran gets nuclear weapon, saudi arabia will, egypt will, turkey and perhaps others.
so i think thuation is headed downhill. and unfortunately, increasingly rapid rate. >> thank you both very much for being with us. next, crout caught -- charles krauthammer on why americans want conservative. he is a star and future of the g.o.p., who else can join the ranks of marco rubio ♪ buy 5-hour energy pink lemonade and ♪
♪ you can help others along the way. ♪ ♪ a portion of every bottle that they sell goes to fight ♪ ♪ breast cancer and i think that's swell. ♪ ♪ the more you take, the more they'll pay, ♪ ♪ so make them write a big check today. ♪ ♪ and if you're feeling a little slow, ♪ ♪ then 5-hour energy will help you go. ♪ ♪ so buy a bottle of pink lemonade and ♪ ♪ you can help fight breast cancer today. ♪ ♪ fare thee well ♪ farewell ♪ mr. gloom be on your way ♪ ♪ though you haven't any money you can still be bright and sunny ♪ ♪ sing polly wolly doodle all the day ♪
>> welcome back to "hannity." tonight, the fallout from tuesday's election continues. if you listen to the narrative spun by the mainstream media in the wake of the barack obama victory, you would be led to believe that the republican party's finished. you would think a conservative candidate has no shot of getting elected. but that's not the case. and my next guest is here to explain why. in his latest column, charles krauthammer calls on republicans
to stand by the conservative principles that define the g.o.p., and here's why. according to the exit polls, a majority of americans believe that the government does too much. 51-43%. in other words, there is very much anapp tight for conserveatism here in america. joining me is syndicated columnist and fox news contributor, charles krauthammer. great tough here. >> pleasure to be here. >> one of the most worrisome things i saw in the exit poll, coming out of tuesday were the numbers of cuban voters in florida. one of the polls showed that the republicans lost the cuban vote, 49-47. now, that is a stunner for us as a party. that's always been a community that has shown great strength and support for the republican party. but have you a solution now that you write about in your column today. tell us about that? >> well, i do think on the cuban issue, this has to do with generational change among the population, the first generation
that actually experienced castroism, was fiercely anti-communist and that's natural. a second generation that grew up in america, in freedom and only heard stories about it might be less so, so the softer policy of democrats might appeal to them. but the large issue is the hispanic vote, of which the republicans got only 27%. i think they are a natural constituency for the conservative party. they're immigrants, they are striving, catholic, religious. they are socially conservative. they ought to be on our side. the real problem is the question of immigration, legal and illegal. and i do think that it's time -- i did not have an epiphany overnight and decided we have to do amnesty as of this election. i wrote a column in april of 2006, when the bush administration was in power and we had control of two houses of congress. i advoticated a -- advocated a policy of border control.
the title was build a fence and then amnesty. you enforce the border. you end the illegal immigration. and if you show the american people that the 12 million or so illegal immigrants are the last cohorts to come into the u.s. because we will control the border, then i think the inherent generosity of americans and the feeling and the good will will prevail and overwhelming majority will say, if you can assure me that this is at this time last cohort of illegal immigrants and we control the border, well, yes, let's legalize their status. i would give them amnesty, not including citizenship, for the generation that came illegally. but legalize them, they don't have to live in the shadows. i think it would be a winning position. i argued it on the merits of 20086, not because of the hispanic vote. but today, i think i would get an audience as a result of the
debacle among the hispanic vote. we change one policy, we say enforcement and then legalization, i think we can change the whole dynamic of the republicans and the latino vote. >> it is certainly the case we need to do more to convey our message as conservatives to the hispanic population, it's a message that ought to be resonating and clearly didn't last time around. we have a larger demographic problem, it seems to me. if you look at the generation of people who came up, for example, came of age under fdr, many of them who supported fdr, would never vote republican, no matter who the candidate was. you look at my generation, who came of age under ronald reagan, you know, it 10s to be more republican. what i am concerned about though, now, if you look at young people coming of age now, are we in danger of creating a situation where they you know, develop the habits of voting democrat and we are never able to move away from that? >> well, i am not that worried
about that for two reasons. number 1, the young generally are more liberal than the old. if you are not a socialist when you are 30, you have no heart. and if you are not a conservative when you are 60, you have no head. you know, all of these people who right now are in their 20s and they vote democratic, i can assure when they have a mortgage and two kids and want their tacks that the in thees are taking from them and sprinkling around, leaving no trace, i think they will vote republican. so i think it's inherent in that constituency. but secondly, do i think, republicans have to understand, they are the conservative party. and that is a winning ideology in a country that is clearly center right by every measure. i think the problem was that we did not have -- i liked mitt romney. i think he was a error good man. i think he would have made a great president. but he was not a man who was fluent in conservative.
it was a second language. he was not the best advocate. he was best of the field that we had, but it was a very weak field. what encourages me and what i think we have to stick stick to our principles, we have a rising generation of articulate, philosopheically fluent conservative it's paul ryan, marco rubio, ted cruz coming into the senate and the governor, scott walker. all across the board, mitch daniels, jeb bush, who will be there in 2016. i predict that the field of candidates in 2016 will be as strong as the field of republican candidates in 1980, which was astonishingly strong -- reagan, bush syren, bob dole. it was a whole generation of admirable and i think the rank will be improved and the message will be much stronger. so the idea is not to become a second liberal party. it is to be conservative and do it better. i think the generation is at
hand. this is not a time for retreat or despair. >> i think you are right. there is woo too much hang wringing in some newscast party, to must have to the left. i can't let you go without asking you about the tragic news of the day, the resignation of general petraeus and the revelation that he has been having an affair with his biog fear. what is your sense of the implications of that and the unfolding narrative in the investigation that somehow led to the discovery of the affair? >> well, clearly, we are going to learn a lot about this and about the administration and how it relates to benghazi. all of this will come out. there is some really, i i would say awful irony, apart from the ory tragedy. he is really an american hero, he saved a war that was being lost. i think what will -- that story will come out. but i would just say, as of tonight, with we know so little,
i would say how sad it is that a great american, a public servant, has had to resign and leave public life in this way. but i think on the story of benghazi, tell now come out because the mainstream media which stayed away from this, they didn't want to endanger obama's re-election, now that there is sex involved, it's a sex scandal, it will be the story they will pursue for the worst reasons and it will all come out in great detail t. won't only be fox, it will be everybody on this, because now it will be a salacious story that will newspapers. that's an unfortunate truth, but i think it's a truth. >> i think you are right. thanks for being with us. coming up, who are the rising stars in the g.o.p.? we will run through the list of folks, like marco rubio, who many see as the figure who can re-energize the party. the president had a pln for winning a second term. but does he have one for saving this country from the fiscal
[ cheeping ] [ male announcer ] you hear that? that's the sound of car insurance compani these days. here a cheap, there a cheap, everywhere a cheap... you get it. so, what if instead of just a cheap choice, you could make a smart choice? like, esurance for example. they were born online and built to save people money from the beginning. it's what they've always done. not just something they cheap about. that's insurance for the modern world. esurance. now backed by allstate. click or call.
esurance. now backed by allstate. try running four.ning a restaurant is hard, fortunately we've got ink. it gives us 5x the rewards on our internet, phone charges and cable, plus at office supply stores. rewards we put right back into our business. this is the only thing we've ever wanted to do and ink helps us do it. make your mark with ink from chase. but with advair, i'm breathing better. so now i can be in the scene. advair is clinically proven to help significantly improve lung function. unlike most copd medications, advair contains both an anti-inflammatory and a long-acting bronchodilator
working together to help improve your lung function all day. advair won't replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms and should not be used more than twice a day. people with copd taking advair may have a higher chance of pneumonia. advair may increase your risk of osteoporosis and some eye problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking advair. if you're still having difficulty breathing, ask your doctor if including advair could help improve your lung function. get your first full prescription free and save on refills at advaircopd.com. remember when christmas was magical? let's get back there. celebrate the arrival of santa at bass pro shops this saturday and the unveiling of santa's wonderland. time passes. hold on to christmas.
>> welcome back to "hannity." as charles krauthammer just explained, even though republicans didn't wen the white house, the party has the tool its needs to make a comeback. already today, many are asking the question, who will be the next star of the guilt o.p.? one person getting a lot of attention is florida senator marco rubio. he was often seen on the campaign trail this election cycle. this week, it was announced high would travel to iowa later this month. what could this mean? joining me to discuss senator rubio and the deep bench of the republican party, the author of "who is counting, how fraudsters and bureaucrats put your vote at risk." and fox news contributor. thank you very much for being here. i think if you are talking about the new rising stars in the
republican party, you have really got to start with paul ryan. >> you do. one lesson we have learned from the recent election is that you can't win on the national level if you are an established republican candidate, that involves romney and also going back to the mccain campaign. what we need are individuals with a strong message of conservative values that are able to communicate that message so the people can understand that it's individuals and want government, free market is the way it succeed in this country. we need really core have the who is can deliver that message. i think rubio can carry florida and relate to hispanics. i think he has a strong conservative base for himself. >> well, if you look at sort of folk who is were not on the national ticket this time, not marco rubio at this point, think about the other people that you see, john, up and coming. it seems to me that the debate about where the party's going is largely going to be settled by
the folks like those we have now in the house and senate, as well as some of the terrific governors. >> right, on the off chance that marco rubio doesn't run, susana martinez being step in. there is kelley ion the -- kelley aiot of new hampshire and ginned frail louisiana, christie of new jersey may have to go to political rehab for a little bit. he has bruised feelings -- >> let's talk about chris christie. heoc gave the keynote at the republican national q check. he was on the short list to be vice-president this time around. but he has certainly -- because of his -- sort of reaction to president obama coming in, many people in the party thought that was excessive, making sure the president was there to help his state made sense, but the praise for the president went overboard. how much do you think chris christie has hurt himself? >> i don't think he is a
conservative. he has the man and and control energy policy for new jersey where the utilities have to purchase a certain amount of solar panel power to provide energy for the state. but i think the hug was very premature because a lot of people are still hurting and still suffering from the consequences of the hurricane. >> in addition to having these terrific young people coming up, which we certainly do have and we do have an entire show about who they are, the party did learn about turnout, in particular. and what is your sense, john, of what you what we need to do to make sure that we can match and overcome the turnout machine that the democrats have. >> a few days before the election, the romney campaign sprung a surprise on everyone, which was going to be the computer-based get-out-the-vote effort, use the computers to figure out who hasn't voted and get them out to the polls. it crashed repeat lead. this will go down as the vista,
the new coke, the isstar. i mean, the heaven's gate of disasters. you had 35,000 volunteers whose job was to get out the vote, wandering around with no direction. the one thing we know about the obama campaign, they spent the last four years, perfecting their ground game, perfecting technology and i will guarantee you, the candidate who is going to get early donor support on the next race, really going to get early active support is, the candidate who will clear out the consultants, hanging around the party like barnacles. >> more conservatives and viewer consultant, a good strategy. thank you very much. coming up, the fiscal cliff is coming. americans want to know, does this president have a plan to prevent financial ruin? and is he willing to work with republicans to solve this in a truly bipartisan way? that's
so bring jobs home, result in a stronger, healthier economy, stronger, healthier economy means more americans working and more revenues, which is what the president is seeking. this framework can lead to common ground. i hope the president will respond today in that same spirit. as i said on wednesday, this is an opportunity for the president to lead. >> that was speaker of the house, john boehner, talking about the looming fiscal cliche. republicans are ready to sit down at the table with president obam a. but is he prepared to compromise? listen to when he had to say earlier today. >> i want to be clear. i am not wedded to every dedale tail of my plan. i am open to compromise. i am not going to ask students and seniors and middle-class families to pay down the entire deficit while people like me making over $250,000 are not asked to pay a dime more in taxes. i am not going to do that. i want to point out, this was a
central question during the election. it was debated over and over again. and on tuesday night, we found out that the majority of americans agree with my approach. and that includes democrat independents and a lot of republicans, throughout the country, as well as independent economists and budget experts. that's how you reduce the deficit. a balanced approach. so our job is to get a majority in congress to reflect the will of the american people. >> joining me with reaction are the author of who is the fairest of them all, steve moore and from the fox business network, charles gasparino. so the fiscal cliff is coming, clearly. you have a big divide between the republicans and the democrats in terms of whether we are talking about reform of the tax code to raise nix nrs revenue, or raising taxes on the highest income -- >> i think you have a big divide
between the president and congress. i mean, remember, simpson-bowles, drk that was one way to deal with it. that had bipartisan support. irskin bowles was not a member of the tea party -- neither is simpson. i think there is some room for compromise here on something like this, with this plan. i will say, we are going to figure out exactly how they deal with this when we get word on who is the treasury secretary for the obama administration. if it is jack liu, the chief of staff, you know that president obama is unlikely to compromise, it will be -- he will push through his plan, which will be essentially, raising the rates. if it is somebody like irskin bowles, compromise is in the air. but this comes down to who is the treasury secretary, replacing geithner who will leave at the end of the year? >> tef, in addition to the debate about tax rates and tax
reform, there is a much bigger divide here. the president again and again and again seems to demonstrate to the american people that he believes more government spenning is the answer. he call its government investment. calls it stimulus. doesn't understand the private sector. how do we get to a point where we are getting the economic growth we need to see those increased revenues? >> it's amazing. clip that you played of the president, somebody forgot to tell him, the campaign was over. that sounded like a wack at republican, john boehner put out the olive branch this week and barack obama really came back with a baseball club. that's not the way to get this done. i agree with charles, i heard you earlier today on fox business, this is not the time when you have a really weak economy to be raising tax rates on businesses and investors. the big problem with this economy right now, liz, you have businesses that are not hiring, there is a real slowdown in investment. i do think, this is a point that
i think the republicans have to make more forcely, if you raise the rates, there is a real danger of a double dip recession in january. he took defense spending out -- >> that's right. >> i mean, this is a very slow economy. but you know, i will say this, the white house, i know this white house 8s are reaching out to the people in banking industry, saying, listen, we are ready to compromise. there is a lot of happy talk behind the scenes. when you talk to the executeuf who is have dealt with president obam athis is one of the least economically serious presidents we have had -- he shows up to the jobs counsel meeting and reads off the teleprompter, doesn't have a substantive conversation, he farms everything out to valerie jarrett, a senior aide, not a business person -- [overlapping dialogue] >> many folks would say that that characterizes the way that he approaches governing in general. you know issue we also saw over the last two day, a 450-point drop in the dow jones.
>> i want to say something about that. i think the press has gotten the story wrong. this wasap obama selloff. it had nothing to do with the fiscal cliff. people have known about the fiscal cliff for a yearism the reason why it was both a fiscal cliff and obama is this -- let me make this point. the worst-case scenario came out with a narrow victory. republicans keeping the house and guess what isn't democrats picking up a couple of eats in the season, they are emboldened without this mandate. so the republicans may say, you don't have a mandate. democrats say, you don't have a mandate. you are at loggerheads, that's what the market said on wednesday. >> it was an election selloff. the one thing this the republicans have to get the message out, cutting government spending is good for the economy, it is not bad for the economy. >> exactly. >> if we can get some cut, that will drive up -- [overlapping dialogue] >> we have to -- we have to throald